Talk:Peroneal nerve paralysis
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
note[edit]
Greetings. This is my wikipedia page for the wikipedia project for BMED 4752. Please leave your comments and I will be appreciated. Thank you. JoowonJun (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
GT Peer Reviews[edit]
Peer review 1[edit]
1. Quality of Information: 1
The information does not seem to be as up-to-date as possible. Many of the references are very over 10 years old and the rest are not complete in the reference list to even know if they are of good quality. It does contain factual information from a variety of sources, i think. Once again, it is hard to tell.
Response to 1: I updated the page with recently published references that is mostly within 5 years.
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 0.5
Although there are 10 references, they are not used nearly enough to account for all the information of the article. Many places have "[citation needed]" at the end of a paragraph because there is nothing cited throughout it
Response to 4: More than 10 references are now included with all citations provided.
5. Links: 1
There were many words in the body of the article that are not commonly known to a wiki user that need to be linked to other wiki pages, especially in the second paragraph of the descriptive overview of the condition.
Response to 5: I added and fixed all the words to be linked after comments from peer review.
6. Responsive to comments: 0
Has not added anything to the Talk page, except for the banner of the ongoing educational assignment, which is given points in the formatting portion of the peer review.
Response to 6: I added responses to the Talk page after comments.
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 1
There are a few grammatical problems and typos. One read through and they can easily be detected and edited.
Response to 8: I fixed grammatical errors and typos. Also, wordings and flow of context are changed.
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 1
Uses multiple forms of media including a video and images. It also has broad overview information as well as the specific detailed information relating to the neurology portion. Overall, it was a very informative paper for the wiki audience, however, there are not very good references making it very difficult to view it as a research project
_______________ Total: 12.5 out of 20
Lisa M Johnson (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Peer Review 2[edit]
1. Quality of Information: 1
Overall, I think there is good information in this article. I think there is room for improvement in your definitions (such as for foot drop in the symptoms section). Also, there needs to be more links and citations throughout the entire article to make your points credible and allow Wiki users easy access to other topics for more information. Also, I think the biography section on Von Zenker is out of place. A whole section on him may be unnecessary for this article.
Response to 1: I updated the page with recently published references that is mostly within 5 years. Also, I thought it would be great to credit and include Von Zenker for his effort on finding the disease.
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
Overall, this article was written like an encyclopedia, which made for easy readability. I also think the bulleted lists were used appropriately and made the content readable for the lay person. Good job!
4. Refs: 0
You have 10 sources listed, but not in the correct citation format (a citation bot has since fixed them). You should cite them more within your article to improved verifiability of your claims.
Response to 4: All the citations are now formatted with help from the citation bot. Also, more recent articles are used for citation now.
5. Links: 0
There are a number of opportunities for linking to other pages that would make this article stronger. Examples: "dorsiflexion", "neurolysis grafting", "foot drop", "mononeuropathy",
Response to 5: I added and fixed all the words to be linked after comments from peer review.
6. Responsive to comments: 2
Took actions showing responsiveness to your first peer review.
7. Formatting: 1
Good table of contents, minus introduction/summary paragraph having its own header (which has since been fixed by another user). I would look at some Wiki pages for medical conditions for ways of improving header titles even more (such as making Symptoms read as "Signs and symptoms"). The only things that should be bolded are the article name and any synonyms for the article name, not things like "more than 80%" in the diagnosis section or "foot drop" in the symptoms section.
Response to 7: I fixed bold fonts. Also, I changed the header from just 'Symptoms' to 'Signs and Symptoms'.
8. Writing: 1.5
A few grammatical issues here and there, but reading through the article again should help you catch those (reading it out loud to yourself can help you catch them). Overall, good writing style.
Response to 8: I fixed grammatical errors and typos. Also, wordings and flow of context are changed.
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page:2
10. Outstanding?: 1
There are pictures and a video present, however, the top picture does not have the peroneal nerve in the picture and is therefore irrelevant. Also, there are concerns from other Wiki users that the picture is anatomically incorrect. Video needs a caption.
_______________
Total: 12.5 out of 20
Adrienne.m.jones (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Peer Review 3[edit]
1. Quality of Information: 1 Only 1 article within the last three years. The article was informative
Response to 1: I updated the page with recently published references that is mostly within 5 years. Most of them are published in 2013.
2. Article size: 2 Meets size requirement
3. Readability: 1 The article was readable, sometimes the flow was hard to follow.
Response to 3: Paragraph is revised now, and some grammatical errors and typos are fixed.
4. Refs: 2 There are 10 references
5. Links: 1 There could be more links that connect this page with wikipedia
Response to 5: I added and fixed all the words to be linked after comments from peer review.
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 2 The article follows basic formatting, table of context, headers, banner are all included
8. Writing: 1 Many errors in grammer, mostly in leaving off articles of speech. Also much of the introduction seems like it could be taken and organized into respective parts of the article. It seemed like a lot of information that kind of just flowed into itself.
Response to 8: I fixed grammatical errors and typos. Also, wordings and flow of context are changed.
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 1 Uses appropriate pictures and videos to supplement writing. _______________
Total: 14 out of 20